Quote from: Drewski on February 22, 2016, 11:51:41 PM

Quote from: criptix on February 22, 2016, 11:21:04 PM

Quote from: Drewski on February 22, 2016, 11:17:08 PM

Quote from: criptix on February 22, 2016, 11:11:52 PM

Quote from: Drewski on February 22, 2016, 09:53:23 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on February 22, 2016, 08:31:43 PM

Quote from: arbitrage on February 21, 2016, 10:21:01 PM

Quote from: McDonalds5 on February 21, 2016, 09:06:55 PM

Combustion engine is actually 19th century technology. It's weird why an engine which is only 30% energy efficient is still being used. It's ancient. Electric cars are the future. Say bye to big oil in next decades. Lithium is the key.

Yes you are may be right. but what is price for electric car- purchasing price?
Producing price per car ? Maintenance, battery ?

Combustion engine may be an "ancient" technology, but it is so pervasive because for the amount of energy you get for the cost, combustion engines are cheap and easy. I also believe electric cars are the future. I currently own a hybrid car. Comparatively, a hybrid car costs a few thousand dollars more than the exact same non-hybrid version, about $2-3k. I've more than made up that cost in the years of driving it, so it's been a sound investment.

As for electric-only, there are plenty of viable models that are not overly expensive. The Nissan Leaf starts at $29k and the Chevy Volt starts at $33k. Tesla is working on a version now as well that will start in the mid-$30k range. The biggest limitation for electric-only vehicles for me is the range. I think the Leaf is around 100 miles, and the Volt offers 50 electric-only miles, though it does run on gas as well.

Well, the killer is not only the range. It's also the recharge time. The average gas vehicle goes about 300 miles before needing to stop for 2 minutes to fill up. Even if you got a car that can do that 300 mile range, it will still take you hours (if quick charging) or most of a day (if not interested in killing battery) to recharge. Hybrids make a lot more sense, especially for heavier use in urban centers. Idling in a regular car is basically burning gas to power your radio.

no, you would exchange your discharged battery for a recharged one at the "gas" station.
but thats all future, we need better energy sources and then we can think about switching to the infrastructure needed.

Well, yes, that would be ideal, but it's not the case right now or in the near future. Also, car manufacturers would need to agree to a battery standard to allow the same battery to fit in any vehicle. Otherwise, it's gonna be fun driving around on a dying battery pack finding someone who's got your pack in stock. And I think you mean energy storage rather than energy source. And yes that does require lots of developing. Some would say hydrogen is the answer, and it might be, assuming they figure out a way to store it without the threat of blowing up.

no i really mean energy source, not storage.
if we would have 100% clean energy (i.e. renewables, fusion) there would be not much of a problem to switching to electric cars.
but we are on world average around 20% maybe?
* im off, its 11% EIA: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=527&t=1

I have to disagree with you on that one. It's not the source of the energy that's impeding the electric car. It's the ability to carry and load that energy that's the issue. It's not like we have a global energy crisis or anything. To the end user, the power is coming out of the outlet, regardless of whether it was generated by renewables or not.

It is not. Range of batteries are already going 300 miles. You dont need to recharge like i explained.
The problem of batteries right now is monetary and pollution cost.

But if we would have clean energy sources then the battery cost would be a good trade off.
Right now our energy comes mainly from gas and oil.